Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

The World Events Thread


RUPERTKBD
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/07/world/asia/japan-shinzo-abe-shooting.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20220707&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=cta&regi_id=56405277&segment_id=97906&user_id=dc88543b79693b0f05322365a827e237

 

Shinzo Abe, Ex-Japanese Leader, Collapses After Gunshot Is Heard

 

TOKYO — Shinzo Abe, the former prime minister of Japan, was apparently wounded on Friday while giving a speech in the city of Nara, in western Japan, according to NHK, the public broadcaster.

 

Mr. Abe, 67, collapsed and appeared to be bleeding, the report said, after a gunshot was heard in the city near Kyoto, according to an NHK reporter on the scene.

  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought I 'd post again Joe Rogan's comments about the last POTUS.

 

Nothing new that he has said but I enjoyed reading through the comment section.

These are MMA fans, mostly from the states. Joe has throw some cold water on some of them and it's stimulated a good convo.

 

Joe Rogan reveals he has rejected interview requests from Donald Trump multiple times: “He is an existential threat to democracy itself”

 

 

https://www.bjpenn.com/mma-news/ufc/joe-rogan-reveals-he-has-rejected-interview-requests-from-donald-trump-multiple-times-he-is-an-existential-threat-to-democracy-itself/

 

Love that Joe say's  ' threat to democracy itself'

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

China's slow power play:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/china-is-relentlessly-trying-to-peel-away-japan-s-resolve-on-disputed-islands/ar-AAZlhB2?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=ea02b3124d3543d3a5b909f5400ca26b

For all the speculation of quick military action by China to achieve its foreign policy goals, Beijing’s track record has been more akin to peeling an onion, slowly and deliberately pulling back layers to reach a goal at the center.

Think of how Beijing built up islands in the South China Sea and then fortified them, eventually establishing what the former head of the US Pacific Command in 2018 called a “Great Wall of SAMs,” – surface-to-air missiles – on islands that years earlier Chinese leader Xi Jinping had pledged not to militarize.

“Relevant construction activities that China is undertaking in the Nansha (Spratly) islands do not target or impact any country, and China does not intend to pursue militarization,” Xi told former US President Barack Obama at the White House in 2015.

Those militarized islands are also claimed in part by the Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan, but none of those places are likely to see their claims realized. The islands – with names like Fiery Cross Reef and Mischief Reef – are essentially People’s Liberation Army bases.

Now Beijing may be slowly peeling back the onion in another disputed 

island chain, the rocky, uninhabited Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, administered by Japan and known as the Diaoyus in China.

Chinese Coast Guard and even naval ships have been spending record amounts of time in the waters around the Senkakus this year, according to the Japanese Defense Ministry.

Earlier this week, a People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) frigate entered the waters in the contiguous zone around the Senkakus for only the fourth time since 2016, Japanese officials said.

A contiguous zone covers waters between islands that do not fall into the 12-nautical-mile limit of a nation’s territorial waters. Foreign warships are allowed into those waters – so the Chinese navy hasn’t broken any international agreements – and China’s Foreign Ministry told CNN earlier this year that the Chinese Coast Guard’s patrols in the waters surrounding the islands were “an appropriate exercise of China’s sovereign right.”

China attempted to demonstrate that right on Monday when it warned a frigate from the Russian Navy to leave the very same waters, a Japanese official said.

“Beijing’s goal is to establish and demonstrate effective control over the Senkaku Islands” and it needs symbols of that control, said James Brown, an associate professor of political science at Temple University in Tokyo.

“Sending its frigate to monitor the activity of the Russian ship could be interpreted as one such symbol of control,” Brown said.

The record amounts of time Chinese vessels are spending near the Senkakus make another statement, Brown said.

To present an international legal claim to the islands over Japan, “China simply needs to establish a greater and more enduring presence of its ships in the waters around the islands,” he said.

Competing claims

Although the islands are uninhabited, there are economic interests involved, according to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The islands “have potential oil and natural gas reserves, are near prominent shipping routes, and are surrounded by rich fishing areas,” it says.

Tokyo says its claims to the islands are rooted in history. Japan’s Foreign Ministry website says in 1895 the chain was incorporated into Japanese territory after the government “carefully ascertained that there had been no trace of control over the Senkaku Islands by another state prior to that period.”

AAZlO0F.img?w=534&h=300&m=6

Japanese Coast Guard vessels, rear and right, sail alongside a Japanese activists' fishing boat, center with a flag, near a group of disputed islands called Diaoyu by China and Senkaku by Japan, in August 2013. - Emily Wang/AP

At one point, about 200 Japanese people lived in the islands, further cementing Tokyo’s claims, and China did not challenge Japanese sovereignty over the Senkakus for 75 years, it says.

“This changed in the 1970s, when significant attention was drawn to the islands due to the potential existence of the oil reserves in the East China Sea,” the ministry’s website says.

Now, those Chinese challenges come regularly.

Japan said Wednesday that Chinese Coast Guard ships had entered Japanese territorial waters in the Senkaku chain for the 16th time this year, approaching a Japanese fishing boat.

The Japanese Coast Guard said its patrol vessels continue to deliver warnings to the Chinese ships to leave. And Tokyo has said it has protested the Chinese presence near the Senkakus through diplomatic channels.

But China has given no indication it’s prepared to negotiate over the islands.

The country’s Foreign Ministry maintains the islands are China’s inherent territory, and has accused Japanese fishing boats of making “repeated intrusions” into the area.

And sending Chinese warships to patrol and monitor the waters around the islands “is an act of safeguarding national sovereignty,” Zhou Yongsheng, a professor at the Institute of International Relations at China Foreign Affairs University, told the state-run tabloid Global Times on Monday.

So Tokyo’s protests are just words. And if Beijing ignores them and keeps on peeling the onion, Tokyo is only left with options it doesn’t have the stomach for, Brown said.

He pointed to a 2010 incident in the islands, when a Chinese trawler rammed two Japanese coast guard vessels. Japan arrested the trawler’s captain but he was later released without charge in the face of a series of escalatory measures from Beijing, including an unofficial ban of the export of vital rare earth metals to Japan.

Tensions remained high for three months, and the Japanese government came under strong domestic protest for its handling of the incident.

“Japan will not risk a repeat of the collision incident,” Brown said.

Chopping the onion

Last year, China introduced a law that allows the Chinese Coast Guard to use weapons to protect national sovereignty, which in a confrontation like that of 2010, significantly expands Beijing’s options. It forces Japan to be even more cautious, according to Brown.

Too much caution can become paralysis. Like the Philippines or Vietnam or Taiwan did in the South China Sea, Japan may fall victim to China’s relentless peeling.

“Overall, Japan risks seeing its administration of the Senkaku Islands slip away,” Brown said.

AAZlSEr.img?w=534&h=300&m=6

The Chinese marine surveillance ship, top, tries to approach a Japanese fishing boat, bottom, as a Japan Coast Guard vessel Ishigaki cruises next to the Chinese ship near what are known as the Senkaku isles in Japan and the Diaoyu islands in China, In April 2013. - Kyodo/Reuters

Some may argue that the Senkakus has one layer of protection China may not be able to peel back – the US-Japan Security Treaty, which requires Washington to defend Japanese territory.

Brown said read the fine print on that – and then consider possible Japanese paralysis.

“The US security commitment applies to ‘territories under the administration of Japan.’ Beijing may therefore be of the view that, if Japan no longer exercises such administration, the US security guarantee to the Senkaku Islands will no longer apply,” he said.

And at that point, the onion will not only be peeled, it will be chopped.

CNN’s Junko Ogura contributed to this report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is how dumb things are getting in Red states......

 

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a40543385/north-carolina-wants-remove-free-public-ev-chargers/

 

Quote

 

Politicians have to run on some kind of platform, and Ben Moss—my incoming state House representative here in North Carolina's District 52—decided that his animating principle is Being Mad at Electricity. To prove his animosity toward this invisible menace, he's sponsoring House Bill 1049, which would allocate $50,000 to destroy free public car chargers. It contains some other enlightened ideas, but that's the main theme: We've simply got to do something about these free public chargers, even if it costs us $50,000! Those things cost tens of cents per hour, when they're being used.

Of course, there's a caveat here. Moss isn't saying that free public Level 2 chargers—of which there are three in my town, with plans in the works to convert to paid kiosks—definitely need to get crushed by a monster truck. That rule only comes into play if a town refuses to build free gas and diesel pumps next to the EV chargers. So anyway, warm up El Toro Loco, we're smashin' some car zappers!

But what about private businesses? you ask. Don't worry, Moss hasn't forgotten that a business might put a charger on its property as an inducement for EV owners to patronize the establishment. And small business is the heart of the local economy. That's why he's staying out of the way when it comes to private property. Just kidding! Ben Moss cares about the consumers being harmed by these hypothetical free chargers—namely, any customer who arrived via internal-combustion vehicle, or on foot, or in a sedan chair. Why is someone else gaining some advantage based on a decision they made? That's not how life works.

Thus, House Bill 1049 decrees that all customer receipts will have to show what share of the bill went toward the charger out in the lot. That way, anyone who showed up for dinner in an F-150 (not the electric one) can get mad that their jalapeño poppers helped pay for a business expense not directly related to them. It's the same way you demand to know how much Applebee's spends to keep the lights on in its parking lot overnight, when you're not there. Sure, this will be an accounting nightmare, but it'll all be worth it if we can prevent even one person from adding 16 miles of charge to a Nissan Leaf while eating a bloomin' onion—not that restaurants around here have free chargers, but you can't be too careful. Now, there is a charger at the neighborhood Ford dealership, which is marking up Broncos by $20,000. Coincidence? I think not.

Critics of this bill might point out that increasing the number of electric cars could actually benefit owners of internal-combustion vehicles, thanks to reduced demand for petroleum products—kind of like how, during the Colonial Pipeline gas shortage, there were no Ford Mustang Mach-Es in line at the local pumps. Or, to put it another way, if the price of paste skyrockets because your local politicians eat so much paste, those prices might come down if you could get them to eat some crayons. But good luck with that! Paste is delicious.

Electron heads, as I call them, also like to point out that electricity is generated domestically, so your transportation dollars are staying in the U.S. rather than going to, say, Saudi Arabia. And if you really want to keep your money in your community, you can hire a local company to install solar panels and make your own electricity. District 52 includes numerous electricians, and Duke Energy utility workers, and solar installers. But no oil rig workers—yet!

Which brings me to another point that's not at all related but I'll make it anyway: What we need in this area is more jobs, not more free public car chargers. And yes, electric-car company VinFast is building a 2000-acre factory just up the road that will employ 7500 people, and Toyota is building a battery factory outside Greensboro that'll employ 1750 people. But let's remember that House Bill 1049 would also create a job, for the person who goes around and rips out the free public chargers—until that's done, which would probably be the better part of a week.

And in fact, we could create even more jobs if we extended this philosophy to other public facilities that not everybody uses. Why should there be a library when I don't like books? Why are there schools? I'm not a kid. Don't get me started on all those roads that go places I've never been, and all those town fire trucks that haven't come to my house except for that one time. Maybe we don't tear all that stuff down, just as long as we can instill the general feeling that someone else is getting away with something.

I don't know about you, but I'm feeling it already.

 

With idiots like this making decisions, the planet is doomed.....:picard:

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Kurgom said:

It's looking like Shinzo Abe will be pronounced dead soon, the language being used by the NHK seems to be prepping the nation for grieving. 

 

 

https://www-cbc-ca.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6514381?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From %1%24s&aoh=16573001437596&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbc.ca%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Fabe-killing-world-reaction-1.6514381

World leaders horrified by Abe killing, Japanese leader remembered as a 'giant on the world stage'

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One way to get out of a traffic ticket; can't wait to see this argued in traffic court:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/us/texas-woman-given-traffic-ticket-says-unborn-child-counts-as-second-passenger/ar-AAZoz6Q?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=dca158321e964e6fa975738488485561

Apregnant woman in Texas told police that her unborn child counted as an additional passenger after being cited for driving alone in a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane, offering up a potentially clever defense for motorists navigating the legal landscape following the supreme court’s striking down of nationwide abortion rights last month.

 

Brandy Bottone of Plano, Texas, tried to fight a ticket for driving with only one passenger in an HOV lane – which requires at least two people in the car – by arguing that her unborn baby should count as her second passenger.

“[The officer] starts peeking around. He’s like, ‘Is it just you?’ And I said, ‘No there’s two of us?’” Bottone recounted to NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth. “And he said, ‘Well where’s the other person?’ And I went, ‘Right here,’” pointing to her stomach.

On 29 June, Bottone, who is 34 weeks pregnant, was driving on US Highway 75 to go pick up her son.

To avoid being late to get him, Bottone took an HOV lane, but a patrol officer pulled her over while trying to exit the expressway, the Dallas Morning News first reported.

An officer approached Bottone’s car, asking where her second required passenger was. When Bottone tried to argue that her unborn baby should count as the additional rider given Texas’s abortion ban after the overturning of federal abortion protections, officers did not agree.

“One officer kind of brushed me off when I mentioned this is a living child, according to everything that’s going on with the overturning of Roe v Wade,” Bottone told the officer, referring to the landmark 1973 supreme court case that granted federal abortion rights. “‘So I don’t know why you’re not seeing that,’ I said.”

The officer told Bottone that to drive in the HOV lane, she needed her additional passenger to be outside her body.

The officer ultimately gave Bottone a $275 ticket, telling her that if she fought the citation in court, it would probably be dropped.

“This has my blood boiling. How could this be fair? According to the new law, this is a life,” Bottone said to the Morning News. “I know this may fall on deaf ears, but as a woman, this was shocking.”

Bottone was pulled over by a deputy with the Dallas county sheriff’s department, who is employed by the Texas department of transportation to enforce HOV rules on the US 75, the Morning News reported.

While the Texas penal code recognizes an unborn baby as a person, current transportation law in the state does not.

Legal experts have argued that Bottone’s argument brings up a unique, legal gray area that the courts are getting acquainted with following the rollback of Roe v wade.

“Different judges might treat this differently,” Dallas appellate lawyer Chad Ruback told the local NBC affiliate. “This is uncharted territory we’re in now.

“There is no Texas statute that says what to do in this situation. The Texas transportation code has not been amended recently to address this particular situation. Who knows? Maybe the legislature will in the next session.”

But Bottone said that the state should not be able to have it both ways.

“I really don’t think it’s right because one law is saying it one way but another law is saying it another way,” Bottone said to the NBC station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Worst part- the stupid freaking cop gives her a ticket despite this "The officer ultimately gave Bottone a $275 ticket, telling her that if she fought the citation in court, it would probably be dropped."

 

Then why the hell waste everyone's time?

Ignoramus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sri Lanka descends into chaos.

Troubling images from Sri Lanka

 

Sri Lankan President Rajapakse and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe were forced to flee today after enormous anti-government protests. Huge crowds stormed official government buildings and took over the President's home. Videos showed protestors swimming in his pool.

Sri Lanka president pool
 

The Prime Minister's home was set on fire.

 

The speaker of the legislature is trying to pull together an all-party government to stabilize the situation. He said President Rajapakse will step down on July 13.

 

The officials were moved to safe locations in anticipation of today's protests, which were a sharp escalation of recent demonstrations. The catalyst has been a fuel shortage in the country.

 

The heavily-indebted country of 22 million has more than $15 billion in dollar-denominated debt and $45 billion overall. It has failed to make payments for oil and gasoline deliveries and that caused severe rationing from the government.

 

High commodity prices, rising rates and the strong US dollar are a toxic mix for heavily-indebted countries, especially those with large current account deficits. Here's a ranking of some of the most-vulnerable spots:

risky emerging markets
 

Aside from the potential turmoil in these countries, it's an open question whether similar crisis' trigger a broader global growth slowdown. The names at the top of this list are insignificant for global demand but as you go down the list, names like Pakistan, Egypt and Brazil stand out. The one I think that's inevitably heading towards trouble is Turkey because of its chaotic monetary policy and large current account deficit. Time will tell.

 
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although this is an opinion piece, I think it raises some very important points, and comes from an angle of experience (given HK's reliance on water from the north).  Consider what our fate would be if we were to start damming up the Columbia River, and how long our neighbours south of the 49th would tolerate that - and this is on the basis of being "good neighbours" and willing parties adhering to the prinicple of rule of law; that should put into consideration what's happening on the other side of the world where those facing strong-arm tactics of a bully have little recourse or ability to seek relief.

 

Quote

Water is power: How Southeast Asia pays the price for China’s dam-building frenzy
“China learned a significant lesson during Sino-British negotiations over Hong Kong’s future: water resources can be a tool for substantial international influence,” writes Paul G. Harris.


by PAUL G. HARRIS
11 HOURS AGO

 

China’s rise over the last four decades has been manifested in growing economic, military and political power. One source of that power is its control over resources needed by other countries, such as minerals used in today’s high-tech batteries and solar-energy systems. A more prosaic power resource is the water in China’s trans-boundary rivers. That water has historically flowed unrestrained into other countries, but now it is increasingly being impeded by Chinese dams.


Dongjiang water pipes
Dongjiang water pipes in Sheung Shui. File photo: Wikicommons.

 

As Hong Kong marks 25 years since the end of British rule, it is opportune to remind ourselves that water played an important role in consolidating China’s control over the territory. That’s because Hong Kong, especially beyond the New Territories, was always short of water. Starting in the 1960s during British rule, major infrastructure for channelling Dongjiang (“East river”) water to Hong Kong was part of what Cheung Siu-Keung, writing in The China Quarterly, has described as China’s “strategic task” of integrating Hong Kong into China.

 

During Sino-British negotiations in the 1980s on whether and under what conditions Hong Kong would be voluntarily relinquished to China, British officials were mindful of the territory’s extreme dependence on China for water, and specifically that Hong Kong could not survive without it. Simultaneously, Chinese officials knew that their control over water and other resources gave them the upper hand in negotiations. The constellation of water resources in favour of China made the end of British rule inevitable.

 

Hong Kong’s dependence on mainland water remained politically significant even after the Handover. For example, a decade ago Chinese officials used the threat of cutting water supplies when warning pro-independence activists of the practical folly of their aspirations. China learned a significant lesson during Sino-British negotiations over Hong Kong’s future: water resources can be a tool for substantial international influence. Today, water is being used by China to heighten its power vis-à-vis nearby countries.


25th Hanover Anniversary banner July 1 Central
Banners in Central celebrating Hong Kong’s 25th Handover anniversary. File photo: Kelly Ho/HKFP.

 

The instrumental value of China’s water resources does not mean that they have been treated with great care. Quite the contrary: China’s lakes, rivers and wetlands have not been spared the wider environmental impacts of rapid economic growth. Those impacts have been predominantly negative, often extremely so. Examples include China’s role in the global scourge of plastic, its negative effects on global fisheries and forests, and its gargantuan (and growing) emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are driving global warming and climate change.

 

Indeed, one of the most severe consequences of China’s economic rise has been the devastation of its rivers, many of which are notoriously polluted by industrial, agricultural and municipal run-off – the vast majority of it untreated – often making their waters unusable for any purpose. (Elizabeth Economy’s book on China’s environmental challenges is titled The River Runs Black for good reason.)

 

China’s rivers are also choked by tens of thousands of dams. Half of the world’s dams are in China but for its government, that’s not enough. To meet growing domestic demand for electricity, it has in recent decades been implementing what Yifei Li and Judith Shapiro describe as a “top-down, mandate-driven dam-building spree” across the country. Increasing hydroelectric generating capacity, which is already more than three times that of any other country, is part of China’s plan to increase electrical supply in underdeveloped provinces. Already, one-fifth of China’s electricity comes from dams. Hydroelectricity is touted as a way to achieve President Xi Jinping’s pledge for China to become carbon-neutral by 2060, despite questions about whether dams are a good way to reduce emissions.


Three Gorges Dam in China
The Three Gorges Dam in China. File photo: Rehman, via Wikicommons.

 

China’s dams bring enormous costs to the environments of affected rivers and the people who rely on them for their wellbeing and livelihoods. Practical opposition to dams within China is limited for the same reason that opposition to other policies is limited: when people – journalists, filmmakers, activists – try to expose the adverse impacts, they are summarily suppressed through sackings and intimidation.

 

China is not just choking its own rivers; it’s doing the same to those of other countries through pollution, deforestation and development projects. It has exported its enthusiasm for dam construction, and it is well established as the “pre-eminent global player in major dam projects.” As part of the Belt and Road Initiative, it is building dams as far afield as Africa. Often the main beneficiary of such foreign dam projects is China itself. Construction is profitably financed by Chinese banks, workers are brought in from China, and for China-built dams in Southeast Asia, the resulting hydropower is often intended for export to China.

 

Dams built and funded by China in other countries adversely affect ecosystems by restricting water flow, preventing the movement of nutrients and sediments, and stopping the natural migration of fish species. For example, Chinese dams on the upper Mekong – known as the Lancang in China – have already endangered dozens of fish species in Vietnam and threaten virtual extinction of the Tonle Sap lake system in Cambodia.


Xiaowan Dam, Mekong River
Xiaowan Dam, Lancang (upper Mekong) River, China. File photo: Guillaume Lacombe/Cirad, via Flickr.

 

Chinese territory is the starting point for major rivers that flow into more than a dozen other countries, making it Asia’s upstream “water controller” and giving it unmatched power to “weaponise water” against downstream countries. The major rivers of South and Southeast Asia originate on the Tibetan Plateau. This has mattered only in recent decades as China has undertaken massive dam-building projects on those rivers. It will become even more significant in the future because global warming, substantially driven by China’s carbon emissions, is melting Tibet’s glaciers. Warming of the plateau is outpacing the global average by several times. Initially this may increase water flows, but eventually it may all but end the supply of water.

 

Chinese officials know all too well what is happening, and realise that dams along rivers flowing from Tibet will enable them to wield control over an increasingly scarce vital resource in the future. This will give China newfound leverage over downstream countries. Nowhere is this more evident than along the Mekong, which flows from China through Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.

 

The Mekong is one of the most dammed rivers in the world, with more than 100 dams along its main artery and tributaries. Hundreds more dams are under construction or planned. China’s first “mega-dam” on the upper reaches of the Mekong was built in 1990. Ten more have been built since then. Because the upper reaches of the Mekong are the source of much of the river’s water, downstream fisheries, agriculture and river navigation are at the mercy of China’s dams.


The Mekong River
The Mekong River near the Xayaburi Dam site. File photo: Kirk Herbertson/International Rivers, via Flickr.

 

Countries sharing the Mekong have suffered repeated droughts as China has held back increasing quantities of water to maximise a steady supply of domestic hydroelectricity. Even in the years when there has been ample water entering the upper Mekong, downstream countries have suffered droughts, proving that China’s dams are to blame (rather than, say, climate change per se). In 2019 and 2020, the Mekong’s water level fell to the lowest for a century, largely due to Chinese dams. The Stimson Centre in Washington, D.C., reported that over a five-month period during 2019, “China’s dams held back so much water that they entirely prevented the annual monsoon-driven rise in river level at Chiang Saen, Thailand. This has not happened since modern records have been kept.”

 

According to Stefen Lovgren, China “operates its dams in secrecy, without much regard for water flow downstream.” It considers data on water management to be a state secret. Downstream countries often experience unannounced stoppages of water flow, causing major disruptions to agriculture, fisheries and river transport, followed by unannounced torrents, resulting in flooding and economic hardship.


Mekong River
Mekong River. File photo: WIL, via Flickr.

 

Defying objective reality, the Chinese government refuses to accept that its dams cause harm to downstream countries. After Laos complained of record-low water levels along the Mekong, China’s foreign minister blamed the problem on drought affecting the river’s headwaters, even suggesting that China was being generous in allowing water to escape its dams. In 2020 China’s foreign minister declared that it “increased water outflow from the Lancang River to help Mekong countries mitigate the drought,” but evidence proved otherwise. Climatologist used satellite data to demonstrate that low water levels along the Mekong were in fact being caused by China holding water behind its dams. China subsequently agreed to notify downstream countries when it was closing its dams, although it complied only after being called out by non-governmental organisations for failing to do so.

 

China’s position is that it owns all of the water entering rivers within the territory that it controls, and it has no obligation to share that water with downstream countries. As Milton Osborne, a fellow at the Lowy Institute in Australia, characterises the situation, “Over the past three decades, China’s actions and policies in relation to the Mekong and what happens in the Lower Mekong Basin have been marked by consistent self-interest.” The Stimson Centre has reported that Chinese stakeholders routinely assert that “Not one drop of China’s water should be shared without China using it first or without making those downstream pay for it.”

 

It should come as no surprise, then, that China has refused to join the long-established Mekong River Commission, a cooperative management organisation whose members include all downstream countries except Burma. Instead, in 2016 China pushed creation of the Lancang-Mekong Cooperation forum, which critics have complained is little more than a vehicle for promoting China’s own interests.


Mekong River Commission
Mekong River Commission. File photo: Wikicommons.

 

China is not alone in building dams along the Mekong, but even when other countries are doing it, China is frequently complicit. For example, dam-building in Laos is facilitated by Chinese construction firms, state-owned enterprises and funding agencies, with the resulting electricity often slated for export to Yunnan province. What’s more, there is a correlation between authoritarianism and dam building: authoritarian regimes of Southeast Asia are more likely to welcome large dam projects and, correspondingly, more likely to welcome a Chinese role in building and financing them.

 

Similar to China’s “weaponisation” of the Mekong over Southeast Asia, it is doing the same with the Brahmaputra River vis-a-vis South Asia. In the years and decades to come, the people of South and Southeast Asia will be warily watching water levels along their rivers that originate in China. The vitality of the Mekong and several other major rivers will depend on decisions taken in Beijing. As water becomes scarcer in the future, affected countries will have little choice but to submit to the new reality that China’s control over water has produced: they will be dependent on Beijing for an indispensable resource. This will give Beijing greater influence in the region.

 

Control over water is a factor that has helped China shape events in Hong Kong to its liking. That same control may help it shape events farther afield. Hong Kong’s experience reveals a significant aspect of China’s rise: water is power.

https://hongkongfp.com/2022/07/10/water-is-power-how-southeast-asia-pays-the-price-for-chinas-dam-building-frenzy/

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, gurn said:

^ Just take a look at Lake Mead, down in the states.

Without a lot of rain, soon, Vegas is in a lot of trouble water wise.

 

water will supplant oil as time goes on.

In a way, it already is.  Potable water is becoming more and more scarce, and is something this country's governments need to start paying close attention to - both in terms of its provision to our citizens (including the indigenous peoples who have long been disadvantaged in gaining access to it) and in terms of monetizing it as an exportable resource (as in, don't sell out our &^@#ing country to multinational corporations who bear no allegiance to us, you nimrods!).

Edited by 6of1_halfdozenofother
eye kan spel
  • Like 1
  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies if we're not supposed to post on American politics any more (and it would be helpful to get some guidelines on that from the mods) but this could be very interesting:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/10/us/politics/bannon-jan-6-trump.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20220710&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=cta&regi_id=56405277&segment_id=98149&user_id=dc88543b79693b0f05322365a827e237

 

Bannon, Facing Jail and Fines, Agrees to Testify to Jan. 6 Panel

 

WASHINGTON — With his criminal trial for contempt of Congress approaching, Stephen K. Bannon, an ally of former President Donald J. Trump’s who was involved in his plans to overturn the 2020 election, has informed the House committee investigating the Capitol attack that he is now willing to testify, according to two letters obtained by The New York Times.

 

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, UnkNuk said:

Apologies if we're not supposed to post on American politics any more (and it would be helpful to get some guidelines on that from the mods) but this could be very interesting:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/10/us/politics/bannon-jan-6-trump.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20220710&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=cta&regi_id=56405277&segment_id=98149&user_id=dc88543b79693b0f05322365a827e237

 

Bannon, Facing Jail and Fines, Agrees to Testify to Jan. 6 Panel

 

WASHINGTON — With his criminal trial for contempt of Congress approaching, Stephen K. Bannon, an ally of former President Donald J. Trump’s who was involved in his plans to overturn the 2020 election, has informed the House committee investigating the Capitol attack that he is now willing to testify, according to two letters obtained by The New York Times.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about this, but my understanding is that the pardon Trump granted to Bannon was specifically related to the fraud case, where Bannon and his business partners defrauded people donating to a scheme for building the border wall.

 

That being the case, SB would have no immunity to prosecution in any case pertaining to the Jan 6th insurrection. That being the case, he might see cooperation with the committee as his only avenue for staying out of jail. Hopefully, this is the case....

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate in Canada-with a dose of potential mental illness;

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/calgary-mother-in-disbelief-after-she-says-her-and-her-son-were-threatened-with-being-set-on-fire/ar-AAZqHvl?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0237265d8cac4bcdab74f0869972bca6

Kerri Singh and her 14-year-old son were walking towards the TD bank on 8 Avenue and 8 Street S.W. on Friday at around 5:30 p.m., when she said a man came up to them carrying a plastic bottle and a lighter.

 

"He said: 'I'm not kidding.' He pulled a gasoline container in my face, very close. I could smell it," Singh said. "He said, 'who's going to get lit first?... This is gasoline and I'm going to start you on fire.'"

Thinking quickly, Singh said she pulled her son behind her and attempted to diffuse the situation.

"I told him we are from Canada," Singh said. "Because my son wears a patka, he is Sikh.

"He totally transformed as I said we are from Canada. When I said we were born and raised in Canada, his whole demeanour changed."

patka is a smaller version of a Sikh turban that is usually worn by boys and teens before they begin wearing a turban.

Singh said the man continued yelling at other visible minority individuals who were on the balcony of a nearby apartment. She said she tried to call 911 but she couldn't get through because of the Rogers outage. Then, the mother and son ran inside the bank to call for help.

Singh said the man went back to his vehicle in a nearby alley where she added he had a jerry can of gasoline.

Police said they believe the man threw gas in the face of another man who was in the alley.

"In the meantime, other people gathered at the corner and they said they witnessed somebody else -- a security guard at the other building -- that had actually been doused with gasoline," Singh said

Police took the man into custody shortly after and transported him to hospital for a mental health assessment.

Singh said she feels terrible for saying she was Canadian as a defence, but added that it did seem to help her and her son out of a potentially dangerous situation.

"I didn't realize that things like this could happen in Calgary, especially when I have a son who is a visible minority," she said.

"I feel for anyone who is out there that is a visible minority. It makes me afraid for them because of the rage that is out there. His rage was so intense."

Both Singh and her husband Ron feel this should be pursued as a hate crime.

"When she said she had to use the words, 'we are Canadian' to un-trigger this gentleman from doing what he was attempting to do, it just blows my mind," Ron said.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Add in:

What the hell is going on in the comment sections to these stories.

Seems like a whole lot of wack jobs out there.

I mean a scary amount.

Edited by gurn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully there's no politics or religion in Subway's sandwiches... :ph34r::ph34r::ph34r:

 

Quote

Subway can be sued over its 100% tuna claims, U.S. judge rules

DNA analysis of tuna sandwiches detected other types of meat

Thomson Reuters · Posted: Jul 12, 2022 9:27 AM ET | Last Updated: 5 hours ago
 
subway-restaurant.jpg
A U.S. judge said restaurant chain Subway can be sued for allegedly deceiving customers about its tuna products, including a claim it uses other fish species, chicken, pork and cattle instead of the advertised "100 per cent tuna." (Mike Blake/Reuters)

 

A federal judge said Subway can be sued for allegedly deceiving customers about its tuna products, including a claim it uses other fish species, chicken, pork and cattle instead of the advertised "100 per cent tuna."

 

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco called it premature to accept Subway's argument that any presence of non-tuna DNA might result from eggs in mayonnaise, or cross-contact with other ingredients that its employees handle.

 

"Although it is possible that Subway's explanations are the correct ones, it is also possible that these allegations refer to ingredients that a reasonable consumer would not reasonably expect to find in a tuna product," Tigar ruled on July 7.

 

The judge also said the plaintiff Nilima Amin, an Alameda County resident who claimed to order Subway tuna products more than 100 times from 2013 to 2019, could try to prove that the salads, sandwiches and wraps "wholly lack" tuna.

 

 

Tigar rejected Amin's argument that "reasonable consumers" would expect only tuna and nothing else, calling it a "fact of life" that tuna products could contain mayonnaise and bread. He also dismissed another plaintiff from the case.

 

In a statement, Subway said it "serves 100 per cent tuna" and was disappointed the "reckless and improper" lawsuit could continue.

 

"We are confident that Subway will prevail when the court has an opportunity to consider all the evidence," it added.

 

Amin's lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

 

Subway has repeatedly defended its tuna in TV ads and on its website, and said changes were not needed. Menu revamps this month and last July included no tuna changes.

 

Amin's lawsuit relied on findings from a marine biologist who tested 20 tuna samples from Subways in southern California.

 

Testing at UCLA's Barber Lab found that 19 samples contained "no detectable tuna DNA sequences," while all 20 had chicken DNA, 11 had pork DNA and seven had cattle DNA, the complaint said.

 

The lawsuit seeks damages for fraud and violating California consumer protection laws. Tigar dismissed an earlier version last November.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/subway-tuna-lawsuit-1.6517716

 

So their "100% tuna" isn't just (or isn't even) tuna, their "chicken" isn't entirely chicken, their "bread" can't be called bread - what's next, that their "lettuce" is actually soylent green?  :ph34r::ph34r::ph34r:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

Hopefully there's no politics or religion in Subway's sandwiches... :ph34r::ph34r::ph34r:

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/subway-tuna-lawsuit-1.6517716

 

So their "100% tuna" isn't just (or isn't even) tuna, their "chicken" isn't entirely chicken, their "bread" can't be called bread - what's next, that their "lettuce" is actually soylent green?  :ph34r::ph34r::ph34r:

For a company that markets 'fresh healthy food' they do seem to be bull$&!#ters don't they?

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...